The streaming video provider wants to block CBS — and, presumably, other broadcasters — from making good on a threat to file suits across the country to address the same issue: whether Aereo violates their copyrights. That’s already being debated at the U.S. District Court in New York, Aereo’s only current market. But CBS chief Les Moonves said last week that as Aereo expands — including in Boston this month — “we’ll sue them again” in different jurisdictions. “We’ll follow it.” Aereo asked the New York court this morning for a declaratory judgment that would try to establish it as the sole locale for the legal battle. Aereo plans to enter 21 additional markets this year after Boston and says that multiple suits “would be highly inefficient and a waste of judicial resources” since it would “involve the same technology, involve the same witnesses, and implicate the same legal and factual issues” raised in New York. Broadcasters may want to find a friendlier venue after the U.S. Appeals Court in New York rejected their effort to shut Aereo during the trial. Justices said that there was a good chance that Aereo could win. The company says that it leases antennas, giving consumers the opportunity to exercise their right to watch programming that’s already distributed for free over the air. “The fact that CBS did not prevail in their efforts to enjoin Aereo in their existing federal lawsuit does not entitle them to a do-over in another jurisdiction,” company spokesperson Virginia Lam says.

17 Comments

I think all judges should have a chance to have their opinion heard on this copyright subject.

lea • on May 6, 2013 8:17 am

Copyright is federal not statutory. It will be shot down; Aereo will come out on top.

Eli • on May 6, 2013 8:17 am

Exciting times for television. But aereo is a temporary company at best and will be gone in five years when all the networks go cable and their channels become simply portals to their streamed programming.

Aereo is simply a company using a small window of fear and stupidity on a change we all know to be coming!

Mister Coburn • on May 6, 2013 8:17 am

This is a pissing contest on a national scale in some respects. Oreo leases the same towers from which original programming is delivered for free. Then, they’re going to build an audience by giving that same programming away for free but over the interweb. Once they have a substantial audience they’ll sell their own advertising for something NOT of their creation. A network incurs all the costs of production while Oreo incurs only the costs of selling and delivery. I’m sorry, did I say, “Oreo?” I guess I had in mind that they’d be delivering cookies as well. Anyway, it’s called Distributive Marketing … it’s also called repackaging or grand theft video. Moonves is sending a message that CBS will fight them on every front. If CBS can force Aereo to spend billions on legal battles, across the country, it becomes less attractive for Aereo to continue. It’s a great idea, to deliver TV programming over the net — CBS should have thought of it first. Instead of using clips to promote their broadcasting they should have increased their base with the same full-length programs on the net back in ’97 when they started plugging their web sites on all their radio stations. It’s the same moronic thinking that was prevalent when cable came on in the 70’s and 80’s — TV and Radio stations were forbidden by policy to acknowledge the existence of cable instead of getting fully into the cable business. GroupW, now CBS, should have been the first to provide their programming on the net instead of letting someone else come up with the idea then having to fight for it. IMHO

Nets will reign supreme • on May 6, 2013 8:17 am

Well said! This is a very foolish play on Barry Diller’s part to make a quick buck by exploiting a copyright loophole. The Networks will come out on top for sure. Also, great job in pointing out the lawsuit situation: Les Moonves could care less if he wins or not, he just wants to drain Areo’s small and half-empty pockets to set them back. The thought that Barry Diller could out-maneuver Les Moonves is laughable.

DonDonP1 • on May 6, 2013 8:17 am

I agree. We must take a stand now and ask congress to save and keep free, over-the-air, broadcast network television. Free TV must co-exist with Pay TV.

AlwaysEvolving • on May 6, 2013 8:17 am

Do not underestimate Diller. He is a few moves ahead.

Becca • on May 6, 2013 8:17 am

Like a Judge in Texas is going to take orders from a Judge in New York. They need to sue them in every market/state they are stealing from! This is theft. Not only from the networks.. but from any residuals going to actors and such.

Mark • on May 6, 2013 8:17 am

How is this theft? They are charging to rent antennas which can be used to watch signals that are already free and every single person that subscribes to the Aereo service has their own antenna. I see no reason why Aereo would lose this case.

Herb Finn • on May 6, 2013 8:17 am

I think the whole issue boils down is it leasing your own antenna and DVR on a single point-to-point like your own roof antenna or a new form of cable.

Eli • on May 6, 2013 8:17 am

A man builds a house, he works hard to build this house, it’s the house he most desired and he gave jobs to construction, planners, architects, designers, he employed very many people to build this beautiful house.

The house has a pool. A neighbor down the street doesn’t have a pool. He comes over and sets up a tent by this man’s hard earned pool. Then he starts charging for the other people to use the pool that he didn’t build.

Unless, Aereo is willing to foot the bill on CBS productions, or productions CBS uses advertising money to bring to audiences. Then they should get out of the pool.

It’s unethical, and it’s theft.

Becca • on May 6, 2013 8:17 am

SAG/AFTRA needs to jump in to stop it too. I’m sure Aereo isn’t paying residuals for internet usage to the actors.

teddy • on May 6, 2013 8:17 am

Except you forgot something in your inane analogy. If you want it to be accurate, you should include the fact that the house is built on property given free to the man so that the house can be shared for to the public (broadcast spectrum that the FCC granted). This grant was no a license to run a monopoly.

Anonymous • on May 6, 2013 8:17 am

Let’s say the man installs a TV antenna on this house. Then he decides that instead of living in the house himself, he’s going to rent it out to a tenant. According to the broadcasters, the tenant can’t use the antenna, since their landlord is charging rent for use of the antenna without paying them a retransmission fee.

eddie willers • on May 6, 2013 8:17 am

Diller will win.

The networks get free spectrum and have established a ‘must carry’ law that cable/satellite have to follow, and THEN the networks have the chutzpah to charge a retransmission fee.

They are now reaping what they have sown.

Becca • on May 6, 2013 8:17 am

I don’t even get how the Judge hasn’t shut down Aereo already… this is like… taping a Beta tape to a VHS tape and selling the VHS tape. ITS THEFT. If they were just repeating the signal without any financial gain over the same distribution model then that may be okay until they spread it into another market. Advertisers pay to air in certain markets and sometimes don’t want other markets to see. The key here is the financial gain over material they have no contractual rights to.

Anonymous • on May 6, 2013 8:17 am

Are they charging for the content or charging a rental fee for the antenna, virtual dvr, cloud storage space and bandwidth to access the content on that cloud storage space? Thats what the courts have to decide.

Its not as easy as saying they are simply selling “free OTA content”. There are a lot more factors involved. Antennas, virtual dvrs, cloud storage and bandwidth aren’t free, and Aereo has every justifiable right to charge for those services.

The judges didn’t shut them down because they aren’t breaking the law, they’ve found a loophole that wasn’t possible before disruptive technology existed to make it so. Its up to congress to change the law. Whether they will or not remains to be seen.